this is something I argue with people all the time about.. this is why wow did so well and still does to this day in that department. People need ot get past just the polygon count and look at the overall picture and to see that picture you really need tro play the game not just look at some screenshots.. GW2 does an amazing job of blending graphics and aesthetics, more so than most any MMO I have played before and it really adds so much to the overall play experience.
I think many can agree with that the aesthetics of GW2 is really good. Although I personally strongly dislike the look of the Chars: they really hurt my eyes. Unfortunely, the title of the thread is "Graphics get'n better - GW2>all" rather than "Aesthetics get'n better - GW2>all", which is a why this thread became so long.
It is funny though that the topic starter still only has one post on this site. Would have expected him to post more in his own thread.
this is something I argue with people all the time about.. this is why wow did so well and still does to this day in that department. People need ot get past just the polygon count and look at the overall picture and to see that picture you really need tro play the game not just look at some screenshots.. GW2 does an amazing job of blending graphics and aesthetics, more so than most any MMO I have played before and it really adds so much to the overall play experience.
I think many can agree with that the aesthetics of GW2 is really good. Although I personally strongly dislike the look of the Chars: they really hurt my eyes. Unfortunely, the title of the thread is "Graphics get'n better - GW2>all" rather than "Aesthetics get'n better - GW2>all", which is a why this thread became so long.
It is funny though that the topic starter still only has one post on this site. Would have expected him to post more in his own thread.
generally sign of a troll post or OP just went on vacation or something heh..
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
For purely "rational/logical" minds (aka binary brains, 1=good, 0=bad), I guess it's easier to quantify graphic quality by just the version number of it's graphic engine... I mean, if it's DX11, it's automatically better than DX9... I can't be wrong, the number is bigger!
I'm working in computer graphics for over 20 years (I code real time effects for the video/movie industry, among other things), long enough to know that the quality of those graphics are just like any other art piece, not only depending of the perfect placement of the pixels on the screen, but also (and MOSTLY) on the talent of the artist who is going to create them. And I'm not an artist, I'm a developer, the one supposed to have a binary brain. You can make the best graphic engine of the world, if you don't have a kickass art team behind you to exploit the engine, the result will be totally unimpressive and only good for a couple of tech nerds to drool on.
The engine is only a tool, like the hammer of the scuptor, or the brush of the painter. Some artists can do wonders with only a piece of chalk on a concrete wall. Others, bad artists, can't do anything good even with a full palette of the highest quality paint and the most expensive brushes.
Thinking that the graphic quality of a video game is only dependent of the version number of graphic engine and the number of polygons is just as silly as thinking you can be an as good writer as JRR Tolkien just because you have the best paper and pencils money can afford, or nowadays the best wordprocessing software and the most expensive computer to use it.
It's total nonsense.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
For purely "rational/logical" minds (aka binary brains, 1=good, 0=bad), I guess it's easier to quantify graphic quality by just the version number of it's graphic engine... I mean, if it's DX11, it's automatically better than DX9... I can't be wrong, the number is bigger!
I'm working in computer graphics for over 20 years (I code real time effects for the video/movie industry, among other things), long enough to know that the quality of those graphics are just like any other art piece, not only depending of the perfect placement of the pixels on the screen, but also (and MOSTLY) on the talent of the artist who is going to create them. And I'm not an artist, I'm a developer, the one supposed to have a binary brain. You can make the best graphic engine of the world, if you don't have a kickass art team behind you to exploit the engine, the result will be totally unimpressive and only good for a couple of tech nerds to drool on.
The engine is only a tool, like the hammer of the scuptor, or the brush of the painter. Some artists can do wonders with only a piece of chalk on a concrete wall. Others, bad artists, can't do anything good even with a full palette of the highest quality paint and the most expensive brushes.
Thinking that the graphic quality of a video game is only dependent of the version number of graphic engine and the number of polygons is just as silly as thinking you can be an as good writer as JRR Tolkien just because you have the best paper and pencils money can afford, or nowadays the best wordprocessing software and the most expensive computer to use it.
It's total nonsense.
Did you watch the video that NBlitz posted? What are your comments on that video?
Did you watch the video that NBlitz posted? What are your comments on that video?
What I think is that if you've understood what my previous message says and what that video says, then you're on the way of understanding what really makes a video game good or bad visually. But dismissing the artistic talent is just as silly as dismissing the engine - both must work together to bring the best possible experience. And therefore, what makes "best video game graphics" overall is matter of individual taste, just like what makes the best painting, the best movie, the best book, etc... and automatically contains a big part of personal opinion. It's something that can't be solved just by "logic", as much as I would like it with my rational developer mind.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Did you watch the video that NBlitz posted? What are your comments on that video?
What I think is that if you've understood what my previous message says and what that video says, then you're on the way of understanding what really makes a video game good or bad visually. But dismissing the artistic talent is just as silly as dismissing the engine - both must work together to bring the best possible experience. And therefore, what makes "best video game graphics" overall is matter of individual taste, just like what makes the best painting, the best movie, the best book, etc... and automatically contains a big part of personal opinion. It's something that can't be solved just by "logic", as much as I would like it with my rational developer mind.
It is solved easily if you use the word "aesthetics" instead of "graphics" in your sentences. If you do that, then everyone agrees.
Thats how the gw2 fanboys think, if you say something bad about the game, you are a hater. GW2 graphics are good, but not that great, and if feel like a b2p MMO compared with some P2P games, talking about graphics.
So as a matter of discussion, you have personally seen the graphics fully optimised?
That's what they used to say about SWTOR and then when the game released the graphics were the same.... Years ago when people had slower computers they couldn't handle running the debugging tools and the graphics set to max so developers would lower the graphic details until the game launched, that's not the case anymore, peoples computers can pretty much handle most stuff thrown at it.... The graphics you see now in GW2 will be the graphics you get when the game comes out....
If you go back to GW2 earliest demo videos the graphics were pretty impressive since then they have reduce the quality, i'm guessing because they couldn't fix lag issue with the graphics set so high, so now they have become a bit more cartoony....
That said game play will always trumpet graphics, but if the game play sucks then people will notice the graphics a lot more..
Before calling people liars, learn to read and UNDERSTAND what they said. I will avoid you undeeded embarassment. I highlighted an important part to help you out.
First, I never said that at level 1, you could go everywhere and kill mobs. Reading comprehension problems on your side here.
What I said is that at level 50 in GW2, you can go back to a starter area, be downscaled to the appropriate level, do an event and still be challenged, and then be rewarded according to your real level. At level 50 in SW:TOR (or any other theme park MMO), if you go to noob area and do quests there, you get crap noob rewards and no xp at all, not to mention there's no challenge because you one hit mobs which have no chance in hell to hurt you. Thus the difference underlined in the highlighted parts of my post. In all other theme park MMOs, if you want to progress, you are limited to a few level appropriate areas. In GW2, the more you progress, the more the world opens up to you as usable content.
Originally posted by The_Korrigan
The way the world is designed and also of course the gameplay based on events and exploration lessen if not remove that feeling of being "on rails" all other theme park MMORPGs have (including Tera of course). When WoW/LOTRO/SW:TOR/Tera hold your hand to the next quest hub full of NPCs with icons over their heads, GW2 makes you explore and enjoy the world "on the fly" as you find it. The "freedom" of old school games like AC1 is back with GW2. And the best is that the world opens up more and more as you progress, as content doesn't become obsolete thanks to level downscaling. When in WoW/LOTRO/SW:TOR/Tera/etc... you are always restricted to areas of your level, and the "end game" world is restricted to a couple of max level areas, in GW2, the more you progress, the more content opens up to you, and at level 80, the whole world is your playground.
[mod edit]
What the heck does this conversation have to do with graphics?
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Guild Wars came out in what 2005? think your being little harsh
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
I'd like to say one thing about the graphics in GW2 - and yes, maybe the limitations of my system stopped GW2 from being a "WOW!" experience - but GW2 reminded me very much of Sword of the New World.
Which isn't bad in my book, as I actually liked the game (and may actually go back in again), it just, well, didn't make my eyes pop open seeing something new for the first time... except maybe the underwater landscape in Lion's Arch.
Which - just going by visuals - and considering that I wouldn't spend every hour of every day in GW2 diving in Lion's Arch - yeah, I think rather then spending $60 on new GW2 I'll rather look at (sort of) the same in SotNW, a F2P game.
Which frankly is also my feeling regarding TSW: Requiem Online (if you ever played it) offers some freaky critters and your run of the mill zombie having been a feature in a good many PC RPGs.
And once you've seen the same tracksuited "dead chick" for the 3rd or 4th time, even superb gore-geous details will be "same same".
I brought in TSW because there I've actually experienced the bigger problem: I was constantly stuck with a framerate of around 4 FPS.
While a not yet GPU optimized GW2 still allowed my system to deliver 20+ FPS (obviously not something a hardcore gamer could live with... I know... and I don't care).
If you want to determine which game will ">all", think about what MMO stands for: Massively Multiplayer Online not Highend Graphics
Why haven't any of the new MMOs stolen the throne out from under WoW? Because WoW allows you to use your 3, 4, 6 year old PC.
Like WoW or not (I frankly don't give a flying ferret's floating fart about it) the game doesn't cut you off at the knee because that PC of yours that you bought last year doesn't give you the most fantastic visuals of all the MMO landscape, or even worse won't let you play the game as anything otger than a slideshow.
Gamers need to understand that highend PCs are far from the norm when it comes to MMO gaming.
So the louder you cry for better graphics (that make your system beg for mercy) the less likely it is that you'll end up with a big crowd playing your favorite game.
Maybe, if instead GW2 were to get more "unique" in visuals (without causing hardware burnouts) then yes, then the game could ">all"
(well, actuall no, it's just all in all to mediocre... but on the other hand, the mob apparently loves fast food, so maybe a simple game like GW2 would just be the right game to pull the crowd... *shrug*)
And if TSW were just to shift it's graphics down to let it run well enough on your average work-PC/study laptop with Intel Media Accelerator, heck, well, it would still remain a niche project, but it could potentially tap into that same niche that made The X Files the hit that the series was.
okay, maybe calling you a liar was a bit harsh, so I'll cut that back to simply you being probably blinded in your GW2 fanbhoyism.
First, for you the fact that you can actually go back to the orchard and collect apples again and kill spiders again, is important, maybe even one of GW2 "great, unique features".
I look at it and just see a confirmation how pathetic this game actually is:
because these quests above (just taken as an example, fits obviously every single quest GW2 has to offer) won't turn into something new, there won't be suddenly a pipe smoking worm crawling out of one of them apples and invite you to take a bite, leading to a completely new quest, just because you are doing it now as a (downscaled) character lvl25.
Actually, on rare occassion while killing spiders and collecting apples a huge boss spider shows up in a new event. This is a rare DE that spawns off of a simple Heart Task location, Heart Tasks not really being full Dynamic Events, but something a little more predictible. So, yes, sometimes the game does throw you a curve ball, even when doing something simple like a Heart Task.
Arenanet have also made clear that their strategy for live, free content updates after release will see an inflow of new Dynamic Events across all zones, of all levels, as an ongoing process. Some new DEs will replace old ones, modify them or be added to a rotation where you won't even know which events tied to a particular patch of real estate may be active on a given day or at a given time.
Sorry for jumping off topic, but you tossed it in there and it deserved a reply. I don't know if you are mis-informed about the game, or just enjoy spreading deliberate misinformation, but it's getting pretty tiresome.
Wow, yeah, the "boss spider"... *cough* you know if this boss spider drop were triggered by a higher level character doing the same things, yes, I'd say AN might be on to something... but saidly it's just one of GW2 normal triggered "events".
Actually, it would probably complicate things by far if in order to create actual "replay value" for each quest (and "above") the system would have to not just scale down the characters taking part in it but also confirm with a database which "unique encounter" would be most fitting for the "party". Otherwise the guy who has done the full orchard quest now for the third time may fail to see the point if it's always the same boss spider that drops or for him always the same "unique encounter" of a cigar smoking zebra with wings...
In short: the game doesn't throw me a "curve ball", not if I know that as part of the normal rotation thru this "quest construct" additional content is a certain times triggered.
In short:
Base quest: go into the orchard and get rid of the spiders.
Apple quest: If somebody asks about the old girl's apple pie AND it's been X minutes since this second "event" was triggered, this will also become active.
Boss Spider "event": every XY.Z minutes an additional aspect will be triggered i.e. the boss spider.
That is pretty much the whole structure. Now, of course, yes, it could be that it's the "Gather the Apples" is also part of the trigger mechanism, but to be honest, it doesn't matter, it's a simple scripted design where you can pretty much bet that AN will not bother changing it ever so often. If ever.
Yes, additional content is something that every game designer promises for their MMO (and surprisingly many actually do it, and not just for "endgame" content).
So, maybe it's really you who needs to take off your pink glasses and come to terms that GW2 will not be the one and only saviour riding in on a blazing chariot the glory of which was never seen, like you'd like it to be.
it will be a game that is really resting on recyling: content, features from other games, etc. but as it's all perfectly served for the bitesize craving MMO gamer of today, hey, it's just the right thing for many... *shrug*
Edit: ah, I see, the community manager sees this as a a thread about graphics, fair enough... *shrug*
I never said Tera didn't look good. I think the engines are fairly comperable and the artistic preference is subjective.
Totally agree. I played Tera and it has awesome graphics but it is missing depth and detail. GW2 has more of a real world feeling that I like. I'm not knocking Tera but it feels like playing an XBox 360 game as far as the art goes. Both are beautiful but it really all matters on personal taste.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
it is beautiful no doubt (GW2) but a bit washed out for my taste. I prefer the photo realistic look it's more immersive to me. Artismal or whatever reminds me I'm in a game. In Tera I find myself getting as close as possible to see a new mob's detail before I get wacked, they need to steal an art dev from that game.
That painterly quality is one of my favorite parts of GW2s graphics personally, I kind of wish they'd even pushed it a little bit further.
It all comes down to taste of course, but as we've seen many attempts at photo realism, we've seen many attempts at cartoony, and there hasn't been a game yet that's had this marriage of elements, I'd have liked it if they'd leaned on the loose illustrative concept art just a bit more. Although they really did hit a good balance in the end.
Having just logged out of another attempt to try and stomach TSW, it really makes me appreciate what ArenaNets gone for graphically. There's nothing wrong with TSWs graphics, but there's no special artistic quality that sets it apart either - it just lacks that flair that crept into GW2s graphics thanks to their fantastic concept art.
There's no right or wrong when it comes to art style, just preferences, but I am glad that they took a new approach with the look of the game. They could have easily just gone with something we've seen over and over again, instead they came up with a really nice aesthetic that's undeniably distinct and cohesive throughout all areas of the game.
We are talking about graphics here not asthetic. Graphic wise and from the technical side few other mmorpgs like TERA,AOC and FFXIV look better but GW 2 is still in the top 5 and looks also amazing. So both sides the haters and fanboys have nothing to proof here.
I'm not sure how you're excluding one or the other, the final graphics we see on our screens are images designed and constructed around a distinct look. They're directly related. They've managed to technically capture and favorably represent that very distinct style displayed in their concept art. It's especially apparent in the way distant structures and landscapes are rendered.
Comments
I think many can agree with that the aesthetics of GW2 is really good. Although I personally strongly dislike the look of the Chars: they really hurt my eyes. Unfortunely, the title of the thread is "Graphics get'n better - GW2>all" rather than "Aesthetics get'n better - GW2>all", which is a why this thread became so long.
It is funny though that the topic starter still only has one post on this site. Would have expected him to post more in his own thread.
generally sign of a troll post or OP just went on vacation or something heh..
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
For purely "rational/logical" minds (aka binary brains, 1=good, 0=bad), I guess it's easier to quantify graphic quality by just the version number of it's graphic engine... I mean, if it's DX11, it's automatically better than DX9... I can't be wrong, the number is bigger!
I'm working in computer graphics for over 20 years (I code real time effects for the video/movie industry, among other things), long enough to know that the quality of those graphics are just like any other art piece, not only depending of the perfect placement of the pixels on the screen, but also (and MOSTLY) on the talent of the artist who is going to create them. And I'm not an artist, I'm a developer, the one supposed to have a binary brain. You can make the best graphic engine of the world, if you don't have a kickass art team behind you to exploit the engine, the result will be totally unimpressive and only good for a couple of tech nerds to drool on.
The engine is only a tool, like the hammer of the scuptor, or the brush of the painter. Some artists can do wonders with only a piece of chalk on a concrete wall. Others, bad artists, can't do anything good even with a full palette of the highest quality paint and the most expensive brushes.
Thinking that the graphic quality of a video game is only dependent of the version number of graphic engine and the number of polygons is just as silly as thinking you can be an as good writer as JRR Tolkien just because you have the best paper and pencils money can afford, or nowadays the best wordprocessing software and the most expensive computer to use it.
It's total nonsense.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Did you watch the video that NBlitz posted? What are your comments on that video?
What I think is that if you've understood what my previous message says and what that video says, then you're on the way of understanding what really makes a video game good or bad visually. But dismissing the artistic talent is just as silly as dismissing the engine - both must work together to bring the best possible experience. And therefore, what makes "best video game graphics" overall is matter of individual taste, just like what makes the best painting, the best movie, the best book, etc... and automatically contains a big part of personal opinion. It's something that can't be solved just by "logic", as much as I would like it with my rational developer mind.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
It is solved easily if you use the word "aesthetics" instead of "graphics" in your sentences. If you do that, then everyone agrees.
That's what they used to say about SWTOR and then when the game released the graphics were the same.... Years ago when people had slower computers they couldn't handle running the debugging tools and the graphics set to max so developers would lower the graphic details until the game launched, that's not the case anymore, peoples computers can pretty much handle most stuff thrown at it.... The graphics you see now in GW2 will be the graphics you get when the game comes out....
If you go back to GW2 earliest demo videos the graphics were pretty impressive since then they have reduce the quality, i'm guessing because they couldn't fix lag issue with the graphics set so high, so now they have become a bit more cartoony....
That said game play will always trumpet graphics, but if the game play sucks then people will notice the graphics a lot more..
lol @ ppl thinkin GW has somewhat good graphics
What the heck does this conversation have to do with graphics?
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
GW2 has awesome graphics and artwork. lol@ppl without youtube.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Guild Wars came out in what 2005? think your being little harsh
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
[mod edit]
^Good catch Aerowyn.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
I'd like to say one thing about the graphics in GW2 - and yes, maybe the limitations of my system stopped GW2 from being a "WOW!" experience - but GW2 reminded me very much of Sword of the New World.
Which isn't bad in my book, as I actually liked the game (and may actually go back in again), it just, well, didn't make my eyes pop open seeing something new for the first time... except maybe the underwater landscape in Lion's Arch.
Which - just going by visuals - and considering that I wouldn't spend every hour of every day in GW2 diving in Lion's Arch - yeah, I think rather then spending $60 on new GW2 I'll rather look at (sort of) the same in SotNW, a F2P game.
Which frankly is also my feeling regarding TSW: Requiem Online (if you ever played it) offers some freaky critters and your run of the mill zombie having been a feature in a good many PC RPGs.
And once you've seen the same tracksuited "dead chick" for the 3rd or 4th time, even superb gore-geous details will be "same same".
I brought in TSW because there I've actually experienced the bigger problem: I was constantly stuck with a framerate of around 4 FPS.
While a not yet GPU optimized GW2 still allowed my system to deliver 20+ FPS (obviously not something a hardcore gamer could live with... I know... and I don't care).
If you want to determine which game will ">all", think about what MMO stands for: Massively Multiplayer Online not Highend Graphics
Why haven't any of the new MMOs stolen the throne out from under WoW? Because WoW allows you to use your 3, 4, 6 year old PC.
Like WoW or not (I frankly don't give a flying ferret's floating fart about it) the game doesn't cut you off at the knee because that PC of yours that you bought last year doesn't give you the most fantastic visuals of all the MMO landscape, or even worse won't let you play the game as anything otger than a slideshow.
Gamers need to understand that highend PCs are far from the norm when it comes to MMO gaming.
So the louder you cry for better graphics (that make your system beg for mercy) the less likely it is that you'll end up with a big crowd playing your favorite game.
Maybe, if instead GW2 were to get more "unique" in visuals (without causing hardware burnouts) then yes, then the game could ">all"
(well, actuall no, it's just all in all to mediocre... but on the other hand, the mob apparently loves fast food, so maybe a simple game like GW2 would just be the right game to pull the crowd... *shrug*)
And if TSW were just to shift it's graphics down to let it run well enough on your average work-PC/study laptop with Intel Media Accelerator, heck, well, it would still remain a niche project, but it could potentially tap into that same niche that made The X Files the hit that the series was.
[mod edit]
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
All right, guys. Let's stick to the topic of this discussion: graphics. If this thread continues to go off-topic we're going to go ahead and lock it.
Thanks!
Wow, yeah, the "boss spider"... *cough* you know if this boss spider drop were triggered by a higher level character doing the same things, yes, I'd say AN might be on to something... but saidly it's just one of GW2 normal triggered "events".
Actually, it would probably complicate things by far if in order to create actual "replay value" for each quest (and "above") the system would have to not just scale down the characters taking part in it but also confirm with a database which "unique encounter" would be most fitting for the "party". Otherwise the guy who has done the full orchard quest now for the third time may fail to see the point if it's always the same boss spider that drops or for him always the same "unique encounter" of a cigar smoking zebra with wings...
In short: the game doesn't throw me a "curve ball", not if I know that as part of the normal rotation thru this "quest construct" additional content is a certain times triggered.
In short:
Base quest: go into the orchard and get rid of the spiders.
Apple quest: If somebody asks about the old girl's apple pie AND it's been X minutes since this second "event" was triggered, this will also become active.
Boss Spider "event": every XY.Z minutes an additional aspect will be triggered i.e. the boss spider.
That is pretty much the whole structure. Now, of course, yes, it could be that it's the "Gather the Apples" is also part of the trigger mechanism, but to be honest, it doesn't matter, it's a simple scripted design where you can pretty much bet that AN will not bother changing it ever so often. If ever.
Yes, additional content is something that every game designer promises for their MMO (and surprisingly many actually do it, and not just for "endgame" content).
So, maybe it's really you who needs to take off your pink glasses and come to terms that GW2 will not be the one and only saviour riding in on a blazing chariot the glory of which was never seen, like you'd like it to be.
it will be a game that is really resting on recyling: content, features from other games, etc. but as it's all perfectly served for the bitesize craving MMO gamer of today, hey, it's just the right thing for many... *shrug*
Edit: ah, I see, the community manager sees this as a a thread about graphics, fair enough... *shrug*
I never said Tera didn't look good. I think the engines are fairly comperable and the artistic preference is subjective.
BTW, as always, click an image to see them full resolution. A couple of these are very high resolution!
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
Totally agree. I played Tera and it has awesome graphics but it is missing depth and detail. GW2 has more of a real world feeling that I like. I'm not knocking Tera but it feels like playing an XBox 360 game as far as the art goes. Both are beautiful but it really all matters on personal taste.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
That painterly quality is one of my favorite parts of GW2s graphics personally, I kind of wish they'd even pushed it a little bit further.
It all comes down to taste of course, but as we've seen many attempts at photo realism, we've seen many attempts at cartoony, and there hasn't been a game yet that's had this marriage of elements, I'd have liked it if they'd leaned on the loose illustrative concept art just a bit more. Although they really did hit a good balance in the end.
Having just logged out of another attempt to try and stomach TSW, it really makes me appreciate what ArenaNets gone for graphically. There's nothing wrong with TSWs graphics, but there's no special artistic quality that sets it apart either - it just lacks that flair that crept into GW2s graphics thanks to their fantastic concept art.
There's no right or wrong when it comes to art style, just preferences, but I am glad that they took a new approach with the look of the game. They could have easily just gone with something we've seen over and over again, instead they came up with a really nice aesthetic that's undeniably distinct and cohesive throughout all areas of the game.
We are talking about graphics here not asthetic. Graphic wise and from the technical side few other mmorpgs like TERA,AOC and FFXIV look better but GW 2 is still in the top 5 and looks also amazing. So both sides the haters and fanboys have nothing to proof here.
I'm not sure how you're excluding one or the other, the final graphics we see on our screens are images designed and constructed around a distinct look. They're directly related. They've managed to technically capture and favorably represent that very distinct style displayed in their concept art. It's especially apparent in the way distant structures and landscapes are rendered.